KQED, Inc. v. Houchins Brief for Appellees

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 75-3643

KQED, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.
THOMAS L. HOUCHINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
For the Northern District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES KQED, ET AL.

WILLIAM BENNETT TURNER 
LOWELL JOHNSTON 
WILLIAM E. HICKMAN 

12 Geary Street
San Francisco, California 94108

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

QUESTION PRESENTED 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS 5

1. Events Leading to this Suit 5

2. The Guided Tours 8

3. Press Access to other Jails and 
Prisons 12

a. San Francisco 12

b. Other County Jails 14

c. San Quentin 15

d. National Policy 18

4. Experience of Other News Reporters 19

ARGUMENT 20
THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS 
DISCRETION IN GRANTING A PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION 20

A. Introduction -- The District
Court's Order 20

B. The District Court's Order 
Granting a Preliminary Injunction 
may be Reviewed only for Abuse
of Discretion 22

C. On the Merits, the District Court
Correctly Ruled that the Sheriff 
may not Deny Reasonable Press 
Access to the Jail 24

li



TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page

1. The Rights at Stake. 24
2. The Sheriff has Failed to

Show that his Press Restrictions 
Further an Important or Substantial 
Governmental Interest or that They 
are no Greater than Necessary or 
Essential to Protect any such
Interest. 28

3. Pell v. Procunier and Saxbe v. Washing­
ton Post Do Not Indicate a Contrary 
Result 34

4. The First Amendment Rights of the Press
Are Not Dependent Upon Whether the 
Sheriff Permits Access by the General 
Public 39

CONCLUSION 48
APPENDIX

ill



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page
Aaron v. Capps, 507 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1975) 45
Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) 42
Associated Press v. KVOS, 80 F.2d 575 (9th 

Cir. 1935) 27
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 25,40,42
Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F .Supp. 128 

(N.D. Cal. 1972) 6,43
Carothers v. Follette, 314 F.Supp. 1014 

(S.D.N.Y. 1970) 31,33
Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 

(7th Cir. 1975) 32
Clifton v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.3d 245 

(1970) 41
County of Alameda v. Weinberger, 520 F.2d 

344 (9th Cir. 1975) 22
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 

(1975) 28,44
Cullen v. Grove Press, Inc., 276 F.Supp. 727 

(S.D.N.Y. 1967) 24
Davis v. Superior Court, 175 Cal.App.2d 8 

(1959) 41
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) 32
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) 31
Geise v. U.S. 262 F.2d 151 (9th Cir. 1958) 45
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 31
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 

(1936) 26
IV



Cases Page
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) 27,37
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 

(1965) 27
Main Road v. Aytch, 522 F.2d 1080 (3d Cir. 

1975) 41
Mathis v. Appellate Department, 28 Cal.App.3d 

1038 (1972) 41
Mazzetti v. United States, 518 F.2d 781 

(10th Cir. 1975) 32
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) 26
Morales v. Schmidt, 489 F.2d 1335 

(9th Cir. 1973) 24
National Prisoners Reform Association v. 

Sharkey, 347 F.Supp. 1234 (D.R.I. 1972) 42
Nebraska Press Ass'n, v. Stuart, U.S. , 

96 S.Ct. 251 (1975) 12
New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 

713 (1971) 26,30
Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 451 F .2d 545 (1st Cir. 

1971) 24,29
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) passim
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) 27,29,34
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 

367 (1969) 27
Saxbe v. Washington Post, 417 U.S. 848 (1974) 34,35,36,39,42
Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 

(7th Cir. 1969) 26
Seattle-Tacoma Newspaper Guild v. Parker, 

480 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1973) 35,37
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960) 29

V



Cases Page

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 
(1969) 41

Southeastern Promotions Limited v. Conrad, 
420 U.S. 546 (1975) 41

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) 27
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 654 (1972) 31
Teterud v. Burns, 522 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1975) 30
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945) 27
Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967) 28
Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 

393 U.S. 503 (1969) 30
Tribune Review Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 

254 F. 2d- -883 (3d Cir. 1958) 32
Trimble v. Johnston, 173 F.Supp. 651 

(D.D.C. 1959) 46
U.S. v. Kobli, 172 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1949) 45
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) 29,41
United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1968) 30
U.S. ex rel Orlando v. Fay, 350 F .2d 967 

(£d Cir. 1965) 45
Yarish v. Nelson, 27 Cal.App.3d 893 (1972) 41
Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) 40

Statutes, Rules and Regulations 
15 Cal. Admin. Code §1060 15
Cal. Penal Code §26605 42
Cal. Penal Code §4570

vi
42



Page
Cal. Penal Code §4571 42
Cal. Penal Code §4572 42

Other Authorities
National Advisory Commission on Criminal 

Justice Standards and Goals 34
Nimmer, Is Freedom of the Press a Redundancy? 

26 Hastings L.J. 639 (1975) 47
Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press 

to Gather Information, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1505 
(1974) 26,29,44

Park, On Being Medium Nice to Prisoners, 
Wash. U.L.Q. 607 (1973) 44
Stewart, "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings L.J. 

631 (1975) 27,47

v n



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 75-3643

KQED, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.

THOMAS L. HOUCHINS,
Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
For the Northern District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES KQED, ET AL.

QUESTION PRESENTED
After a full evidentiary hearing, the district 

court (Carter, Chief Judge) granted a preliminary injunction 
enjoining the Sheriff from excluding responsible press 
representatives from the Alameda County Jail for the purpose 
of reporting on newsworthy events at the jail, except 
when jail security might be endangered. Before this suit was



filed, the Sheriff completely excluded both press and public. 
After suit was filed, the Sheriff began providing limited 
guided tours for the public, and the press was allowed to 
join the tours. The question presented is whether, in 
these circumstances, the district court abused its discretion 
in granting a preliminary injunction.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This action was filed in the district court on

1/June 17, 1975(Rl).. The plaintiffs in the court below —  
appellees here —  are KQED, Inc. and the Alameda and Oakland 
branches of the NAACP. KQED is a non-profit corporation 
engaged in educational television and radio broadcasting 
(Rl-2). Publicly-supported, KQED serves the counties in 
the San Francisco Bay Area. It maintains a regular daily 
television news program on Channel 9, entitled "Newsroom".
The NAACP plaintiffs are unincorporated associations and 
local branches of the national NAACP, whose members reside 
in Alameda and Oakland in Alameda County, California (R2).

Defendant Thomas L. Houchins —  appellant here —  
is the Sheriff of Alameda County. He has general supervision 
and control of the Alameda County Jail facilities at Santa

1/ Citations to "R" refer to pages of the Record on Appeal.

2



Rita (R2). He has been in office since January, 1975
2/

(Tr. 80).
A motion for a preliminary injunction was filed 

3/
with the complaint (R7). It sought an order enjoining 
the Sheriff, during the pendency of this action, from ex­
cluding KQED from covering newsworthy events at the Alameda 
County Jail. In support of the motion, plaintiffs submitted 
the affidavits of Sheriff Richard D. Hongisto of San Fran­
cisco and several experienced news reporters. In response 
to the motion, appellant Houchins offered his own affidavit 
and the affidavit of a Deputy Sheriff. The motion was 
argued in the district court on July 30, 1975 (see R82-84).
On August 6, 1975, Judge Carter stated his intention to 
grant some form of preliminary relief, and requested the 
parties to attempt to agree on the terms thereof (R51; Tr. 3). 
However, after some delay the Sheriff refused to agree to 
any terms and requested an evidentiary hearing, which was 
granted by the district court.

2/ Citations to "Tr." refer to pages of the Reporter's 
Transcript of the evidentiary hearing held on November 6 
and November 10, 1975.
3/ The district court clerk states in the Record that the 
motion as well as the opposition to it (R23) were not suitable 
for reproduction but were transmitted separately to this 
Court. The motion and opposition contain several affidavits 
received in evidence below (Tr. 5,6,9).

3



The evidentiary hearing was held on November 6 
and November 10, 1975. At the hearing, Sheriff Houchins 
and a Lt. Matzek testified for appellant. Sheriff Hongisto 
of San Francisco, the Public Information Officer from San 
Quentin State Prison, and three television news reporters 
testified for plaintiffs. In addition, the court received 
considerable documentary evidence.

On November 20, 1975, Judge Carter issued a memo­
randum and order granting preliminary injunctive relief 
(R57-63). The memorandum provided that the specific methods 
of implementing press access were to be determined by the 
Sheriff (R63). On November 21, 1975, Sheriff Houchins 
sought a stay of the preliminary injunction for two weeks, 
to enable him to develop procedures for implementing such 
access. According to the Sheriff's affidavit dated November 
21 (R56-68), the specific procedures to be developed would 
cover searches of reporters and their equipment, proper 
identification of press representatives, instructions as 
to matters that could not be photographed, consent forms 
for interviews, etc. Judge Carter granted the temporary 
stay (R74).

However, instead of implementing any procedures 
on press access, the Sheriff filed notice of appeal and 
sought a stay of all relief. This was denied by Judge 
Carter (R76). The Sheriff then sought a stay from this

4



Court. A stay was granted on December 24, 1975 (Chambers 
and Sneed, J.J.). Plaintiffs then filed a motion for 
clarification or amendment of the stay or, in the alternative, 
for an order expediting the appeal. By order filed January 
12, 1976, Judges Chambers and Sneed granted an expedited appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Events Leading to this Suit

KQED's Newsroom has for many years reported 
regularly on newsworthy events at prisons and jails in the 
San Francisco Bay Area (Tr. 167-170; Pl.Exhs. 4,5). A large 
number of stories have been covered on the premises of the 
jails or prisons, with film, video or still camera (Id.). 
Included have been numerous stories from the San Francisco 
County jails, the Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara

4/
County jails and San Quentin and Soledad prisons (Id.).
None of this news gathering activity has ever resulted in 
any jail disruption or danger of any kind (Tr. 170-71;
Pl.Exh. 4; R42-43).

In covering stories on location in jails and 
prisons, KQED recognizes that inmates are entitled to their

4/ On one occasion, KQED even did a live one-hour tele­
cast direct from the San Francisco Jail at San Bruno, 
interviewing staff and dozens of inmates (Tr. 170; 190-91). 
See also affidavits of Sheriff Richard D. Hongisto and 
Joseph Russin, attached to plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction.

5



privacy, and this is respected. As a matter of policy,
KQED does not photograph or interview inmates without their 
consent (Tr. 170-71; Pl.Exh. 4). When appropriate or 
required, KQED will obtain formal written consents (Tr. 171).

On March 31, 1975, KQED's Newsroom reported on
the alleged suicide of an inmate named Alvin Holly at the
Santa Rita jail in Alameda County (Tr. 171; Pl.Exh. 4).
KQED's information was that the suicide followed the
failure by the Sheriff's Department to provide a court-ordered
psychiatric examination (Id.). KQED also reported, by way
of background, the decision of the federal court in San
Francisco finding that conditions in the Santa Rita facility
where the suicide took place were "shocking and debasing,"

V
violating "basic standards of human decency." KQED also 
reported statements by a Santa Rita psychiatrist that 
conditions at the facility were responsible for the prisoners' 
emotional problems. The psychiatrist was fired after he 
appeared on Newsroom (Tr. 186-87).

In connection with this developing news story,
KQED's Mel Wax telephoned Sheriff Houchins and requested 
permission to see the jail facility and take pictures 
there (Tr. 171; Pl.Exh. 4). The Sheriff refused, stating

5/ The decision is Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 F.Supp. 128, 
132-33 (N.D. Cal. 1972), where Judge Zirpoli found that 
the "truly deplorable" conditions at Santa Rita constituted 
cruel and unusual punishment.

6



only that it was his "policy" not to permit any press
access to the jail (Id.). KQED attempted to follow the
story without access to the jail; it was able only to report
on Grand Jury and Board of Supervisors investigations of
the conditions at Santa Rita (Tr. 172-73).

Prior to the filing of this suit, the Santa
Rita Jail was completely closed to the press and public

6/
(Tr. 123). The previous Sheriff had conducted a "press 
tour" in June, 1972, attended by several television 
stations with reporters and cameramen, and by newspaper

yreporters and photographers. But the facility had been
freshly scrubbed for the tour, and the reporters were
forbidden to ask questions of any inmates concerning

8/
conditions there. Subsequent attempts by reporters to
cover stories at Santa Rita were rebuffed both by the previous

9/
Sheriff and by Sheriff Houchins. This is true even though 
the Sheriff is unaware of any disturbances ever caused by news

6/ See also affidavits of William Bennett Turner and Bruce 
Henderson, submitted with plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction.
7/ See affidavit of Bruce Henderson submitted with plain­
tiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
8/ Id.
9/ Id. See also the testimony of KPIX-TV's Ben Williams 
at Tr. 207-210.

7



media access to a jail, and has never even heard of any disruption 
in any jail or prison, anywhere, because of such access 
(Tr. 126-128) .

2. The Guided Tours
After this suit was filed, the Sheriff initiated

10/
a series of six monthly guided tours for the public.
They were exhaustively described in testimony offered on 
behalf of the Sheriff (Tr. 15-77). Each tour is limited to 
25 persons (Tr. 174). The tours are booked on a first come- 
first served basis (R37-38). Representatives of the 
press are permitted to go on the tours if they sign up in 
time (R33,47-48). All six tours for 1975 were completely booked 
within a week after they were announced in July 
(Tr. 68; R37-38, 47-48). In other words, any reporter 
who did not instantly sign up for a tour weeks or months 
in advance was completely barred from access to Santa Rita 
for the balance of the year (Id_. ; Tr. 116-17).

As described by Lt. Matzek, the guided tours 
took the tourists through most but not all of the Santa

10/ Sheriff Houchins testified that he initiated the public 
tours in order to gain support for the construction of new 
jail facilities in Alameda County (Tr. 81, 129).

8



Rita facilities. Excluded from the tour is the notorious 
"Little Greystone" (Tr. 30, 174-75), the scene of alleged 
beatings, rapes and poor conditions (Tr. 174-74, 208).
Also excluded are the "disciplinary cells" in the Greystone 
facility (Tr. 67).

At the outset of each tour, the officials lay
down the ground rules for the tourists. It is forbidden
to speak with any inmates who might be encountered (Tr. 62;
175). No photographs are permitted (Tr. 62; 174). No
tape recorders are allowed (Tr. 67). The Sheriff offers
a series of 20 photographs for sale to the tourists, at

11/$2 each or $40 for the set (Tr. 65). None of the
photos shows any inmates; they depict only some of the 
plant and equipment. There are no photos of the women's 
cells (Tr. 64), of the "safety cell" (Tr. 65), of the 
"disciplinary cells" (Tr. 67), of the bakery, laundry 
or fire station (because someone decided they are "not 
very interesting" -- Tr. 39), or of the interior of Little 
Greystone. The photo of the Big Greystone cell omits the 
wire mesh ceiling and the catwalk above the cell, which 
permit a guard to observe the prisoner from above at all

11/ The photographs are in evidence as defendant's Exhibit D.

9



times (Tr. 176). The photo of the day room at Greystone 
is also incomplete in that it does not show the television 
monitor that observes inmates or the open urinals and showers 
(Id.).

KQED's Mel Wax went on the first tour of Santa 
Rita. The inadequacy of the guided tours as a means of 
providing the working press with information to convey to 
the public is described in Mr. Wax's affidavit (R33-36) 
and in his testimony at the evidentiary hearing (Tr. 173-180)

(a) The tours are completely guided and are 
accompanied by several guards (Tr. 57-58; R34). The 
tourists are of course shown only what the guards allow 
them to see (R35). Thus, despite the reports Mr. Wax had 
received about abuses in Little Greystone, that facility 
is omitted from the tour (Tr. 174-75). The very notion of
a guided tour is inconsistent with the responsibility of the 
press to dig out the news (R35).

(b) Because the tourists are forbidden to speak 
with any inmate, they are able to get only "one side of the 
story" (Tr. 174), and this is inconsistent with the 
obligation of responsible reporters to check the other 
side.

(c) The tourists get only an artificial idea of 
the the reality of jail life, because all inmates are

10



removed from view. The Sheriff testified that inmates 
must be kept "from sight and communication with the tour 
group" (Tr. 106). Thus, the tourists never see the inmates 
in their normal living conditions at the jail (R35).

(d) The tours are also inadequate for getting 
accurate information to the public because press repre­
sentatives are not permitted to take either still or 
television cameras with them. These are the "tools of 
the trade" of the broadcast media (R35). As Mr. Wax 
testified, "The most effective thing we can do on television
is not filter [the information] through a reporter, but

12/
show it directly" (Tr. 180) . The sterile and unrealistic
photos proffered for sale by the Sheriff show only plant 
and equipment and do not hint at the actual conditions 
of life in the jail (Tr. 176, R34).

(e) Finally, offering only a periodic scheduled 
tour makes it impossible for the press to cover a specific 
newsworthy event or follow a developing news story (Tr. 175- 
76; R36). That is, even if the scheduled tours had not

12/ See also the affidavit of William Schechner (R42-43), 
and the affidavit of Bruce Henderson submitted with plain­
tiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, showing that the 
inability to publish pictures of the jail conditions makes 
it difficult to convey accurate and realistic information 
to the public.

11



been completely booked immediately after their announcement 
(thus precluding the press from visiting Santa Rita for 
the balance of the year), developing news events are 
evanescent. They do not coincide with the Sheriff's 
schedule of tours. Offering only a periodic tour makes 
it impossible to cover an escape, a fire, a suicide or

13/other newsworthy event as it happens. It also makes it
possible for the jail to be "scrubbed up" especially for

13a/
the tour, as was done for a press tour in the past, 
thus creating a false impression.

3. Press Access to other Jails and Prisons
The evidence shows that other jails and prisons 

have no limitations of the kind imposed by Sheriff Houchins, 
that they routinely provide free press access and that such 
access creates no problems whatever:

a. San Francisco County
Sheriff Richard D. Hongisto testified at the 

evidentiary hearing (Tr. 189-203) and also submitted an

13/ Mr. Justice Blackmun recently noted that First Amendment 
interests are infringed each day a press restriction continues:

"The suppressed information grows older.
Other events crowd upon it. To this extent, 
any First Amedment infringement that occurs 
with each passing day is irreparable."
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, U.S. ,
96 S.Ct. 251,254 (1975).

13a/ See affidavit of Bruce Henderson in support of plaintiff's 
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

12



affidavit in support of plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
14/Injunction. He operates four jails for San Francisco

County (Tr. 190).
Sheriff Hongisto routinely authorizes reporters

to enter and cover stories in his jail facilities (Tr. 190-192).
Never, on any occasion, has this created any security

15/
problems or any disruptions (Tr. 191-92). Such press
access does not disturb the constant movement of prisoners 
within the jail (Tr. 192-95, 198-99). (The prisoner move­
ments are no different from those at Santa Rita.) Nor does 
such access create any extra work or overtime for jail 
staff (Tr. 203).

News reporters are permitted to bring cameras 
and tape recorders with them (Tr. 196, 216). Sheriff 
Hongisto also permits interviews of both inmates and staff 
(Tr. 196). Under the San Francisco Sheriff's policy, 
reporters have general access to the jail facilities and

14/ Unlike Sheriff Houchins, who took office only in 1975 
after service as a deputy, Sheriff Hongisto is in his 
fifth year as Sheriff; he has a Master's degree in Crimi­
nology from the University of California and is now a 
doctoral candidate; he also served for ten years as a 
police officer (Tr. 189-90).
15/ Even the live television newscast that KQED did from the 
San Bruno Jail, involving interviews with large numbers of 
inmates and staff, created no problems at all (Tr. 191; see 
also affidavit of Sheriff Hongisto in support of Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction).

13



can speak to anyone (Tr. 201). The Sheriff has received 
50 to 60 requests for inmate interviews in four years as 
Sheriff; he has declined only one, at a time when jail 
tensions were high (Tr. 196). If an inmate to be inter­
viewed is a pretrial detainee and the case involves some 
notoriety, Sheriff Hongisto would first contact the inmate's 
attorney (Tr. 201), but the consent of the district attorney 
or a court order is not required (Tr. 202). The privacy 
of inmates is protected by the press not taking photographs 
or interviewing inmates without their consent (Tr. 202).
The Sheriff has found the press to be cooperative in 
abiding by his guidelines (Tr. 201-202).

Further, Sheriff Hongisto advanced affirmative 
reasons, from the point of view of a correctional admini-^ 
strator, for admitting the press to the jails (Tr. 193-94). 
He testified that jails "routinely end up being places 
that are extraordinarily and most unnecessarily abusive 
to people" and that media exposure of conditions serves 
to enhance public awareness and thus motivate county 
supervisors to provide adequate funds for more decent 
facilities (Tr. 193-94).

b. Other County Jails
As noted above, KQED has done stories on the 

premises of several other county jails, including Contra
14



Costa County, San Francisco County, Santa Clara County 
and San Mateo County (Pl.Exh. 4). Other reporters have 
done the same (Tr. 205, 215).

California's Guidelines for Local Detention 
Facilities (Def.Exh.I) set forth the State's policy on 
press access to jails: "As in any government operation,
the public has a right to know how and why its tax dollars 
are spent in detention and corrections." The Guidelines recognize 
that "Normally the bulk of the public's information on 
government operations is through the various news media."
The California Administrative Code accordingly requires 
that "Each facility administrator shall develop a plan 
for the dissemination of information to the public, to 
other government agencies, and to the news media."
(15 Cal. Admin. Code §1060; Def.Exh. I, p.14). However,
Sheriff Houchins could not testify to any written plan 
complying with the State guidelines and claimed that the 
guided tours constituted a "plan" (Tr. 220-222).

c. San Quentin
San Quentin's Public Information Officer William 

Merkle testified about the press policy of the California 
Department of Corrections as implemented at San Quentin 
(Tr. 143-165). The general Department policy is that

15



"Correctional facilities are public 
institutions operated at public 
expense for the protection of so­
ciety. Citizens have a right and 
a duty to know how such institutions 
are being conducted." (Pl.Exh.2;
Tr. 144) .

The details of the Department's policy are spelled out in
plaintiffs' Exhibit 3. To implement the citizens' "right
to know" the policy generally provides for completely
open media access to the prisons, with reporters allowed
to bring in cameras and tape recorders, to view all areas
of the prison, to talk with prisoners generally and inter-

16/
view prisoners of their choice.

Mr. Merkle testified that at San Quentin reporters 
have access to all areas of the institution, including 
the maximum security areas (the adjustment center, seg­
regation, etc.)(Tr. 145, 147). They may interview inmates 
encountered at random (Tr. 145), and they may, with the 
permission of the warden, interview individual prisoners 
selected by them (Tr. 146). Cameras, including television 
cameras, may be brought in with the warden's approval, as 
may tape recorders (Tr. 148, 164).

16/ Because the Department policy anticipates practically 
all problems and provides specific detail, it bears careful 
study. For the convenience of the Court, we have attached 
the relevant parts of the policy as the Appendix to this 
brief.

16



Mr. Merkle testified that arrangements for the 
press to come to the institution are very simple, and can 
be made the same day of the request (Tr. 148-149). Mr. 
Merkle usually accompanies the reporters, but no guards 
are part of the escort (Tr. 149-50). Reporters have 
been cooperative in abiding by the ground rules set at 
San Quentin (Tr. 150).

Although there are considerable movements of 
prisoners within San Quentin (including movements of some 
prisoners out to court)(Tr. 150-51), San Quentin has ex­
perienced no disruptions or security problems whatever 
because of press access (Tr. 151). Inmates are in their 
cells or going about normal institutional activities 
while reporters are present (Tr. 155,164). No extra
staff work or overtime is incurred because of media access 

17/
(Tr. 158).

Nor has there been any problem in protecting 
the privacy of the prisoners. San Quentin's policy is 
that the press may not interview or take photographs of 
any prisoner without his consent (Tr. 150). Consent forms

17/ However, if reporters intend to stay in the institution 
for a long period of time, for example to film a documentary, 
they would be expected to pay for this (Tr. 158-59). Channel 
5 spent three full days in San Quentin shooting a particular 
story, and apparently paid for this privilege (Id.).

17



consent, reporters may also interview San Quentin prisoners
who are awaiting trial on in-prison crimes; consent of the
district attorney is not required (Tr. 152-53).

At San Quentin the press could of course be
excluded by the warden if any security problem developed 

18/
(Tr. 161-62). None has.

are made available on the spot (Tr. 155-56). With appropriate

d. National Policy
The district court received in evidence the

relevant standards promulgated by the National Advisory
Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (P.Exh. 1).
The Commission was appointed by the LEAA to formulate
standards for institutions benefiting from LEAA grants (Id.).
The Commission's members include many of the Nation's
leading correctional administrators, as well as represen-

19/
tatives of the judiciary, the bar and law enforcement.

Sheriff Houchins has received substantial funds 
from LEAA, including a grant for the reconstruction of Santa

18/ In addition to providing open news media access, San 
Quentin has frequent tours for the general public, during 
which inmates are regularly encountered (Tr. 153-54; last 
page of Appendix to this brief).
19/ Included on the Commission as Vice Chairman is the 
Sheriff of Los Angeles County (1/3. ; Tr. 119), and on the 
task force on Corrections is Norman Carlson, the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Id.).

18



Rita (Tr. 118-19), but he does not comply with the Standards.
Standard 2.17 flatly provides that:

"Representatives of the media should 
be allowed access to all correctional 
facilities for reporting items of 
public interest consistent with the 
preservation of offenders' privacy."
(Pl.Exh.1)

4. Experience of Other News Reporters
The evidence before the district court also 

includes the affidavits of a newspaper reporter who had
2 0 /

attempted, unsuccessfully, to cover stories at Santa Rita.
Two television reporters for KPIX-TV Channel 5 in San 
Francisco also testified at the evidentiary hearing. Ben 
Williams testified that he had done several jail and prison 
stories on the premises of institutions in San Francisco 
and San Quentin (Tr. 205). In addition, he went on the 
press tour of Santa Rita held in 1972, after the federal 
court had ordered improvements there (Tr. 206). He has 
observed no disruptions of jail or prison routine because 
of his access on any of these occasions (Tr. 207).

Mr. Williams twice attempted to gain access to 
Santa Rita in 1975, to cover stories of reported gang

20/ See affidavit of Bruce Henderson submitted with plain­
tiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Mr. Henderson's 
second affidavit at R37-38.

19



rapes and a suicide there (Tr. 207-8). He spoke personally 
with Sheriff Houchins, who excluded him from the jail 
(Tr. 208). The Sheriff gave no reasons for the exclusion, 
stating only that it was "policy" and not mentioning any 
security devices or problems with the physical plant 
(Tr. 208-209). Mr. Williams also tried to get on the 
first guided tour of Santa Rita in July, 1975. He promptly 
signed up but was removed from the list when someone in 
the Sheriff's Office decided that more members of the 
public and fewer members of the press would be permitted 
to go (Tr. 209-210).

Amalia Barreda, also a Channel 5 reporter and 
anchorperson, testified that she had covered a news story 
at the San Francisco jail at San Bruno and another story 
at San Quentin (Tr. 215). On both occasions, she was 
accompanied by a cameraman who shot film used on television 
(Tr. 216, 217). Interviews of prisoners were done on both 
occasions. There was no disruption because of such press 
access (Tr. 217).

ARGUMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN 

GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Introduction -- The District Court's Order
Finding that the requirements for a preliminary 

injunction were met (R63), the district court granted an
20



Order (R57-58) that was carefully tailored to protect the 
legitimate interests of all parties. The Order preliminarily 
enjoined the Sheriff from excluding, "as a matter of general 
policy", KQED and other responsible news representatives 
from the jail (R57). Specifically, the Order directed 
that reporters be given access "at reasonable times and 
hours" and that they be allowed to use photographic and 
sound equipment and inmate interviews for the purpose 
of full and accurate news coverage of jail 'conditions. 
Deferring to the Sheriff's administrative discretion,
Judge Carter expressly provided that "the specific methods 
of implementing" press access are to be "determined by 
Sheriff Houchins" (R63). Further, the Order expressly 
provides that the Sheriff may "in his discretion" exclude 
all news access "when tensions in the jail make such media 
access dangerous" (R58).

In short, the Order is a model of restraint.
It does not grant the press total and instant access on 
demand. Rather, the Sheriff may make reasonable time, 
place and manner restrictions and may even, in his dis­
cretion, deny all access when he believes that jail tensions 
would make access dangerous. Moreover, Judge Carter's 
direction that "the specific methods of implementing" 
access are to be determined by the Sheriff permits the 
Sheriff to deal with any actual administrative problem.

21



The district court granted the Sheriff a temporary stay 
based on the Sheriff's representation (R66-68) that specific 
procedures would be developed to cover such matters as 
searches of reporters and their equipment, proper identi­
fication of press representatives, instructions as to 
items that could not be photographed, consent forms for 
interviews, etc. However, the Sheriff has chosen not to 
implement any procedures for press access, and has instead 
taken this appeal, denying that he is required to permit 
even the reasonable access contemplated by the district 

court's order.

B. The District Court's Order Granting a Preliminary
Injunction may be Reviewed only for Abuse of Discretion

When a district court has found that all the 
requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction 
are satisfied, this Court reviews this determination 
only for abuse of discretion. See e.g. County of Alameda v. 
Weinberger, 520 F.2d 344,349 (9th Cir. 1975) , and cases 
cited. Appellant's contention that there may be review 
"de novo" when the lower court's action was "based upon a 
particular legal principle" is correct only if the district 
court was not called upon to resolve any ultimate facts or 
balance any equities. Here, of course, Judge Carter found 
that reasonable press access during the pendency of this suit 
would not result in injury to any legitimate interest

22



of the Sheriff. The court's finding resolved differences 
in the live testimony of several witnesses. It has not 
been challenged by appellant. Moreover, as explained above, 
the district court's preliminary order carefully balanced 
the equities and recognized the legitimate interests of 
all parties. In these circumstances, appellant cannot 
properly claim that there was any abuse of discretion.

A further reason for not disturbing Judge Carter's 
preliminary order is that it provides an excellent op­
portunity for definitively resolving all problems relating 
to press access before this litigation goes to final judg­
ment. Thus, we believe that implementation of the reasonable 
access provided by the district court's order will demonstrate 
even to the Sheriff that none of his objections is well- 
founded. He may then decide voluntarily to change his 
policy, or consent to a permanent order like that of the 
district court. During the litigation he may also implement 
and adjust the procedural details of access. Conversely, 
if actual problems are encountered by the Sheriff during 
the pendency of this case, that would be a reason for 
the district court to deny or limit permanent relief.

23



C. On the Merits, the District Court Correctly Ruled
that the Sheriff may not Deny Reasonable Press Access 
to the Jail

1. The Rights at Stake.
As Judge (now Mr. Justice) Stevens said in a

related context, lamenting "inadequate public awareness
of the nature of our penal system,"

"from the standpoint of society's 
right to know what is happening 
within a penal institution, it 
is perfectly clear that traditional 
First Amendment interests are at 
stake." Morales v. Schmidt,
489 F.2d 1335,1346 & n.8 (9th Cir.
1973) .

"Conditions in this Nation's prisons are a matter that is
both newsworthy and of great public importance." Pell v.
Procunier, 417 U.S. 817,830 n.7 (1974); see also Nolan v.

21/
Fitzpatrick, 451 F.2d 545,547 (1st Cir. 1971). The Cali-

21/ Judge Mansfield has also pointed out that conditions in 
similar institutions "are of great interest to the public 
generally" and has elaborated as follows:

"Such public interest is both legiti­
mate and healthy. Quite aside from 
the fact that substantial sums of 
taxpayers' money are spent annually 
on such institutions, there is the 
necessity for keeping the public 
informed as a means for developing 
responsible suggestions for improve­
ment and of avoiding abuse of inmates 
who for the most part are unable 
intelligently to voice any effective 
suggestions or protests." Cullen v.
Grove Press, Inc., 276 F.Supp. 727,
728-729 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

24



fornia State Guidelines under which Sheriff Houchins 
is supposed to operate state that "As in any government 
operation, the public has a right to know how and why its 
tax dollars are spent in detention and corrections."
(See p. 15, supra). The California Department of Corrections 
policy points out that correctional institutions are 
"operated at public expense for the protection of society. 
Citizens have a right and a duty to know how such insti­
tutions are being conducted." (see p. 16 r supra). In 
short, what is at stake in this case is the extent to 
which the people are entitled to information about their 

county jails.
The First Amendment rights involved are comple­

mentary —  the right of the press to gather the information, 
and the people's right to have it. Recognizing that 
the First Amendment right of the press to publish would 
be meaningless if the press were prevented from gathering 
information in the first place, the courts have acknowledged 
a newsgathering right. "Without some protection for seeking 
out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated." 
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665,681 (1972). Therefore, 
"Newsgathering is not without its First Amendment protections."

25



Id. at 707.
It is no accident that the First Amendment singled 

out the press for protection:
"The Constitution specifically se­
lected the press...to play an impor­
tant role in the discussion of public 
affairs. Thus the press serves 
and was designed to serve as a power­
ful antidote to any abuses of power 
by governmental officials and as 
a constitutionally chosen means 
for keeping officials elected by 
the people responsible to all the 
people whom they were selected to 
serve." Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S.
214,219 (1966).23/'

22/

22/ See also Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 
(7th Cir. 1969)(upholding a complaint alleging a "con­
stitutional right to gather and report news, and to photo­
graph news events"); Note, The Rights of the Public and the 
Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1505 (1974) .
23/ This is a recurrent Supreme Court theme:

"The predominant purpose of the [First 
Amendment] was to preserve an untram­
meled press as a vital source of public 
information....[A]nd since informed 
public opinion is the most potent of 
all restraints upon misgovernment, 
the suppression or abridgment of the 
publicity afforded by a free press 
cannot be regarded otherwise than with 
grave concern." Grosjean v. American 
Press Co., 297 U.S. 233,250 (1936); 
see also New York Times Co. v. United 
States, 403 U.S. 713,717 (1971) (con­
curring opinion of Mr. Justice Black).

In Grosjean, the Supreme Court approved Judge Cooley's statement 
that the First Amendment was not designed merely to prevent 
censorship of the press "but any action of the government by means 
of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of 
public matter as seems absolutely essential to prepare people 
for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens."
297 U.S. at 250.

26



Thus, as Mr. Justice Stewart has pointed out, the First 
Amendment's freedom "of the press" clause is unique —  
the press is the only nongovernmental organization explicitly 
given constitutional protection. Stewart, "Or of the Press",
26 Hastings L.J. 631,633 (1975); accord, Associated Press v. 
KVOS, 80 F.2d 575,581 (9th Cir. 1935) (adding that press, 
"engaged in news gathering and dissemination," must be 
free "from interference by governmental agencies").

But this case does not merely involve the right 
of the press to do its job in gathering and publishing 
information on newsworthy events in the jail. It involves, 
in addition, the "right of the public to receive such in­
formation". Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817,832 (1974).
Citizens like the NAACP plaintiffs have a right to know 
non-confidential information about their tax-supported in­
stitutions. The recipient's right, grounded on the First 
Amendment, has often been recognized. See Pell, supra; 
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,762-65 (1972); Red 
Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367,390 (1969); Stanley v. 
Georgia, 394 U.S. 557,564 (1969); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 
381 U.S. 301 (1965); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516,534 (1945). 
As the Supreme Court said in a related context, the addressee 
of a communication from prison has a First Amendment right 
against "unjustified governmental interference with the 
intended communication." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.

27



for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit
of all of us." Time, Inc, v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374,389 (1967);
see also Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469,491 (1975) .

2. The Sheriff has Failed to Show that his 
Press Restrictions Further an Important or Substantial 
Governmental Interest or that They are no Greater than 
Necessary or Essential to Protect any such Interest.

Since the opportunity for KQED and other reporters 
to cover news at the jail would plainly further the public 
interest in having information on matters of importance, 
the question is whether a substantial governmental interest 
justifies his restricting the press. The issue is not, as 
the Sheriff would have it, whether the press should have 
"greater access" to the jail than the Sheriff grants to

24/"members of the public at large". Rather, the inquiry
is in what circumstances may the government (in this case, 
the Sheriff) restrict the press in its ability to gather 
nonconfidential information on matters of public interest.

396,409 (1974). Thus, First Amendment guarantees "are not

24/ We do consider this contention at pp. 39-47, infra.

28



When First Amendment interests are at stake,
the Supreme Court has consistently required that government- 
imposed restrictions be justified by a substantial governmental 
interest and that the particular restriction be the least 
drastic means of serving that interest. Thus, to justify 
a jail restriction on communication, the officials have 
the burden of showing, first, that the restriction furthers 
"an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated 
to the suppression of expression," and second, that the 
limitation of First Amendment freedoms is "not greater 
than is necessary or essential to the protection of the 
particular governmental interest involved." Procunier v. 
Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,419 (1974). This is a well established 
principle. See e.g. United States v. 0 1Brien, 391 U.S.
367,377 (1968); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479,488-90 (I960); 
Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 451 F.2d 545,548 (1st Cir. 1971);
Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather In­
formation, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1505,1521 (1974).

In the present case, the Sheriff was unable to 
show either that his restrictions on the press served 
any valid state interest or that the restrictions were 
no greater than necessary or essential to protect any 
such interest. We would concede that jail security is a 
legitimate interest. But the Sheriff has not shown that

29



restricting the press is actually needed in order to 
protect jail security. His policy of excluding the press 
except for "guided tours" is clearly not the least re­
strictive means of serving the interest of jail security.
The record affirmatively shows that reasonably free press 
access does not present problems of jail security.

The district court, having heard all the testimony, 
found that any security concerns were insubstantial. The 
Sheriff has not challenged any of the district court's 
findings. The Sheriff was unable to present any evidence 
of disruption caused by news media access; he has never even
heard of any disruption in any jail or prison, anywhere,

25/
because of such access (Tr. 126-128).

The Sheriff did not make a serious attempt to 
show that access by reporters would actually jeopardize 
jail security. Rather, his primary concern was the in­
convenience that press "tours" might cause if provided

25/ As for any subjective anxiety the Sheriff may have,
"in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of 
disturbance is not enough" to overcome First Amendment 
rights. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S.
503,508 (1969); Teterud v . Burns, 522 F.2d 357,361-62 (8th Cir 
1975). The insubstantiality of the Sheriff's showing is 
emphasized by cases holding that even considerations of 
national security do not eliminate First Amendment protections 
See New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713,730-31 
(1971); United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258,263-64 (1968).

30



"on demand". But the interest of KQED is not in having
26/

"tours", and the district court order does not require
either "tours" or press access "on demand". KQED's main
interest is in being able to cover newsworthy events at
the jail, when they happen. This would involve the opportunity
to spend a few minutes at the scene of the event (e.g. the
escapee's hole in the fence, the charred remains of the
burned dormitory, the bleak cell where the suicide took
place, etc.). And we recognize that access "on demand" may not be
feasible. The district court's order, providing for access
"at reasonable times and hours" and authorizing the Sheriff
to lay down the ground rules for such access, fully protects

27/
the Sheriff's interest in administrative convenience.

Nor does the Sheriff's concern for protecting 
the privacy of the prisoners justify exclusion of the press.

26/ It should be noted that the Sheriff has no objection 
to scheduled tours for the press, including cameras (Appellant's 
Opening Brief, p.9; Tr. 111-112). Conducting large guided 
tours is probably the most inconvenient and unnecessary 
measure the Sheriff could have burdened himself with. For the 
reasons noted above (p.10-12,supra), however, providing only 
periodic guided tours is not an adequate means of getting 
needed information to the press and public.
27/ In any event, it is settled that considerations of admin­
istrative efficiency or convenience are not sufficient 
justification to deny constitutional rights. See e.g. Fuentes 
v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67,90 n.22 (1972); Stanley v . Illinois,
405 U.S. 654,656 (1972)("the Constitution recognizes higher 
values than speed and efficiency"); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 
U.S. 254,265-66 (1970); Carothers v. Follette, 314 F.Supp. 
1014,1028 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

31



All the evidence shows that KQED and other press representatives 

do not photograph or interview prisoners without their 
consent (Tr. 150,170-71,201-2), and the Sheriff is free 
to make this a firm requirement. Although the Sheriff 
also professed a desire to protect pretrial detainees 
from publicity, this is a red herring. In the first place, 
he in fact permits photographs and interviews of pretrial 
detainees, regardless of any security or publicity problems, 
provided only that formal consent is obtained (Tr. 89,91,97,118). 
In the second place, the right to a fair trial is the right 
of the accused, not the Sheriff. See Chicago Council of 
Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242,250 (7th Cir. 1975), and 
cases cited. The Sheriff is not under any legal duty to 
prevent all pretrial statements. Nor can he be permitted to 
use a "pretrial publicity" claim to suppress prisoner state­
ments about the conditions of their confinement -- the

28/
subject of this suit.

28/ Moreover, only pretrial publicity that seriously and 
immediately interferes with a fair trial is subject to pro­
scription. See Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, supra,
522 F.2d at 249, and cases cited. For the same reasons, the 
fair trial-free press decisions relied on by the Sheriff are 
not in point. Thus, in Mazzetti v. United States, 518 F.2d 
781 (10th Cir. 1975), the court merely upheld a rule against 
taking photographs in a courthouse, pointing out that the 
rule was intended to insure a fair trial for defendants. In 
addition, the photographer in question had in fact created an 
actual disturbance at the courthouse, and had taken pictures 
of prisoners without their consent. Tribune Review Publishing 
Co. v. Thomas, 254 F.2d 883 (3d Cir. 1958) , upheld the same 
rule against taking photographs in and around the courtroom. 
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1955), simply recognizes the 
due process right of a criminal defendant not to have a 
massively publicized and televised trial. All these fair trial 
cases emphasized the accused's right to a dignified and de­
liberative judicial setting. These cases do not apply to 
press inquiries into conditions at a jail.

32



Finally, the record affirmatively shows that all
the Sheriff's concerns are in fact groundless. The record
includes both the experience of other jail and prison
administrators and the considered opinion of experts in
the field. The testimony of the Sheriff of San Francisco
County (Tr. 189-203) dealt with all of appellant's concerns
and demonstrated that a free press policy created no problem
whatever. A San Quentin official explained the completely
open press policy of the California Department of Corrections 

29/
(Tr. 143-165), and established that none of appellant's
concerns, whether security or convenience or privacy, was
in fact a problem. Finally, the experience of KQED and
other reporters in covering news on the premises of many
other county jails and prisons shows that the press can
be permitted to do its newsgathering job without interfering

30/
with any valid correctional interest.

29/ It is not without interest that San Quentin was the insti­
tution involved in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974), 
relied on by the Sheriff. Subsequent to the Pell decision,
San Quentin abandoned the one press restriction upheld by Pell.
3_0/ There is also the expert judgment of authorities in the 
field -- the standards of the prestigious National Advisory 
Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, (see pp. 18-19, 
supra), providing for free media access to correctional insti­
tutions. Evidence that other institutions do not impose a re­
striction is of "substantial probative value" in showing that it 
is not actually needed for legitimate penal purposes. See Brown v. 
Peyton, 437 F.2d 1228,1232 (4th Cir. 1971); see also Teterud v. 
Burns, supra, 522 F.2d at 361,n.9; Fano v. Meachum, 520 F.2d 378, 
380 (1st Cir. 1975). Compare Main Road v. Aytch, 522 F.2d 1080 
(3d Cir. 1975), holding that a jail administrator cannot restrict 
the content of prisoner news conferences. Of course, such an un­
usual claim —  the right to hold a news conference —  goes far 
beyond the limited press access sought in the present case.

33



In summary, the Sheriff has utterly failed to 
show that his restrictions further an important or sub­
stantial governmental interest or that they are no greater 
than necessary or essential to protect any such interest.
The restrictions are therefore invalid. Procunier v. Mar­
tinez, 416 U.S. 396,413 (1974).

3. Pell v. Procunier and Saxbe v. Washington Post 
Do Not Indicate a Contrary Result

The Sheriff builds virtually his entire argument 
on dicta from Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974), and
Saxbe v. Washington Post, 417 U.S. 848 (1974). He relies 
on these cases for the broad proposition that newsmen have 
no greater right of access to prisons than the general public. 
The Sheriff then reasons that since he allows the press to 
join his public guided tours, there is no First Amendment 
problem. But Pell and Saxbe will not carry the weight the 
Sheriff puts on them.

The sole restriction on press access upheld by 
and Saxbe was a prison rule against interviewing 

inmates specifically singled out by the press. The Court 
upheld this limited restriction because there was evidence 
in both cases that the restriction was necessary to avoid 
security problems caused by undue attention to "big wheels" 
who gained notoriety and influence over other prisoners.

34



However, Pell and Saxbe did not authorize any broad press 
restriction like that maintained by the Sheriff here. Indeed, 
the Court expressly pointed out in Pell that "both the press 
and the general public are accorded full opportunities to 
observe prison conditions." 417 U.S. at 830(emphasis added). 
Thus, in Pell the Court noted that "Newsmen are permitted to 
visit both the maximum and minimum security sections of the 
institutions and to stop and speak about any subject to any 
inmate whom they might encounter." 417 U.S. at 830. In 
addition to tours, newsmen were permitted "to enter the 
prisons to interview" randomly, selected inmates. The same 
was true in Saxbe. There, the Court noted that "Members of 
the press are accorded substantial access to the federal 
prisons in order to observe and report the conditions they 
find there." 417 U.S. at 847. In addition, newsmen were per­
mitted to tour and photograph any prison facilities and inter­
view inmates they encountered. Id̂ . at 847, n.5. Thus, the
only restriction upheld by Pell and Saxbe was the rule against

32/
the press singling out specific inmates for interviews.

32/ Although not cited by appellant, the same result was reached 
in Seattle-Tacoma Newspaper Guild v. Parker, 480 F.2d 1062 
(9th Cir. 1973). Precisely the same federal prison rule was 
involved. In Seattle-Tacoma, there was a disruption at a 
maximum security prison and in this emergency situation the 
Court upheld the right of the warden to deny permission for 
the press to interview strike leaders. Since the news media 
otherwise had "extensive access to prison facilities and personnel," 
the Court found that the interest in prison security outweighed 
the "uncertain burden" on news reporting from denying inter­
views of strike leaders. 480 F.2d at 1066-67. The Court left 
open the validity of the no-interview rule at lesser security 
institutions. Thus, the Court's reasoning was that traditional 
First Amendment tests were satisfied, not that the rights of 
the press were dependent upon the rights of the general public.

35



As the district court noted here, the press
access actually permitted by the institutions in Pell and
Saxbe is precisely the access sought by KQED. Absent a
showing that such access would interfere with a valid
correctional interest, Judge Carter properly found that

33/
Pell and Saxbe do not authorize exclusion of the press.

It is true that part of the district court's 
order authorizes "inmate interviews" (R58). But this does 
not run afoul of even the narrow holding of Pell. Even 
assuming the order authorizes the press to single out in­
dividual inmates for interviews, the Sheriff has no complaint 
about this. He in fact already permits interviews of 
specifically designated inmates. Thus, the evidence 
shows that the Sheriff, regardless of any jail security 
problem, will authorize interviews of specific inmates, 
provided only that the press obtain formal consents (Tr. 89,91, 
97,118). Since the Sheriff has no complaint about such

33/ In addition, it is of significance that (1) the inter­
view restriction of Pell was, on the evidence in the record 
there, a measured response to a violent episode, while here 
there is no such evidence; (2) Pell and Saxbe involved 
facilities housing felons, many of whom are recidivists 
convicted of very serious crimes, while Santa Rita has only 
pretrial detainees and persons convicted of misdemeanors or 
serving short terms; and (3) the penal interests of deterrence 
and rehabilitation, mentioned in Pell, have no application 
to pretrial detainees, who are presumed innocent of any crime.

36



interviews, and since this is the only part of the district 
court's order that is even arguably inconsistent with 
Pell and Saxbe, these decisions do not require overturning 
or even modifying the district court's order.

Finally, the discussion in appellant's brief 
about prisoner communication by mail, visiting and tele­
phone is apparently inspired by the discussion in Pell of 
"alternative means of communication" available to prisoners. 
417 U.S. at 823. The Sheriff misses the point, however, 
because the Pell opinion shows that alternative communi­
cation means were relevant only to the prisoners1 asserted 
right to be interviewed by the media, not to the media's 
First Amendment right to gather the news. The Court declined 
to declare a new and unusual prisoner's right when there 
were both proven security dangers and alternative ways for 
a prisoner to reach an outside ear. Even the existence of 
adequate alternatives was not in itself conclusive of the 
prisoner's right. Pell, supra, 417 U.S. 823-24; see also 
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753,765 (1972).

Even if any alternative communication means 
are considered here, those offered by the Sheriff are clearly 
inadequate for the purpose of providing the media and the 
public with full and accurate information on jail conditions. 
As to mail, it is wholly unrealistic to expect that jail

37



inmates, confined for a few days at Santa Rita, will 
have either the interest or the ability (many are illiterate) 
to convey to the media or the public useful information 
about conditions at the jail. Even assuming a prisoner 
wrote to a reporter, no responsible journalist would 
publish unsubstantiated information from a prisoner's 
letter. As KQED's Mel Wax testified, there must be an 
opportunity to get the "other side of the picture," to 
check the story and to verify any prisoner allegations 
(Tr. 175,186). Also, of course, prisoner letters do not 
give the press or public any opportunity to view the conditions

34/in question.
As to visiting, it is unlikely that reporters 

would know any individual prisoner at Santa Rita. (KQED's 
Mel Wax knows none, Tr. 188). Even if KQED knew the identity 
of an inmate or two, this would be of no help in covering 
a particular newsworthy event at the jail. Also, of course, 
visiting a prisoner only gives the visitor a view of the 
visiting room, not of the actual living conditions at

34/ Use of the telephone has similar defects. The record 
only shows that maximum security inmates are permitted 
to make collect calls (Tr. 46). It is highly unlikely that 
many news organizations would accept collect calls from 
prisoners. Even if they did, no responsible journalist 
would publish unverified information from an unseen prisoner 
on the telephone.

38



the jail (Tr. 72). Finally, as shown at pp. 10-12, supra, 
the Sheriff's guided tours are not an adequate means of 
gathering and disseminating essential information about 
newsworthy events or conditions at the jail. In short, 
none of the means proffered by the Sheriff could possibly 
satisfy the need for timely and complete information or 
be conclusive of plaintiffs' First Amendment interests.

4. The First Amendment Rights of the Press 
Are Not Dependent Upon Whether the Sheriff Permits Access 
by the General Public

As pointed out above, the holding of Pell and 
Saxbe was not that the press is entitled to no greater 
right of access than the general public. Rather, the 
rule of decision was the traditional First Amendment test 
of whether the specific restriction in question was in fact 
justified by an important governmental interest (prison 
security). Since the Court found evidence that security was 
actually endangered by singling out individual inmates for 
interviews, the Court upheld the specific no-interview rule. 
In other words, Pell and Saxbe did not mark a departure 
from settled First Amendment principles. The Court's 
statement about the press having no greater right of access 
than the general public does not represent an inflexible 
constitutional rule and must be read in light of the records

39



in those cases. The Court has never held that in no 
situation does the First Amendment provide the press with

35/different or greater rights than the general public.
The First Amendment rights of the press cannot 

be dependent on whether the Sheriff, in his unfettered 
discretion, permits access to the jail by the general 
public. The Sheriff's contention, if adopted, would 
authorize him completely to exclude the press, as he did 
before this suit was filed, provided that he also excluded 
the general public. This would authorize the Sheriff 
to impose a total information blackout, regardless of 
whether there was any justification in terms of jail 
security or any other valid penal interest. Such unfettered

35/ Pell's sole reliance for the "no greater access" dictum 
was on Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). The opinion 
in Branzburg contained a similar dictum, but all the case 
held was that a newsman had no testimonial privilege to 
resist testifying before a grand jury investigating crime 
of which he had knowledge. As the Court noted in Branzburg, 
"The sole issue before us is the obligation of reporters 
as other citizens to respond to grand jury subpoenas rele­
vant to an investigation into the commission of crime."
408 U.S. at 682 (emphasis added). The Court also pointed 
out that (unlike the situation here) its holding involved 
"no restraint on what newspapers may publish or on the 
type or quality of information reporters may seek to acquire" 
Id. at 691 (emphasis added). The Branzburg dictum on "no 
greater " right of the press in turn relied on Zemel v. Rusk, 
381 U.S. 1 (1965). In Zemel the Court held that a citizen 
did not have a constitutional right to have his passport 
validated for travel to Cuba. Important considerations of 
national security, 381 U.S. at 14-15, militated against 
this asserted right. There was no issue whatever as to the 
rights of the press.

40



discretion is inconsistent with safeguarding the First
Amendment interests of the press and the people and has
never been tolerated. See Southeastern Promotions Limited
v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546,553 (1975); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham,
394 U.S. 147,150-51 (1969); Main Road v. Aytch, 522 F.2d
1080,1098 (3d Cir. 1975) .

Indeed the Sheriff does not have discretion
completely to exclude even the general public. The Sheriff's
argument that public access to a jail is m'erely a "privilege"
as opposed to a "right" (Appellant's Opening Brief, p.13)
is not supported by the cases he relies on. The California
cases merely stand for the proposition that a Sheriff may

36/
"reasonably regulate" access to a jail. The state statutes

36/ Mathis v. Appellate Department, 28 Cal.App.3d 1038 (1972),
merely upheld a narcotics conviction arising from the search of 
a visitor's car parked in a jail lot. The court said that jail 
officials may restrict visitation "in ways reasonably consistent 
with the security of the facility." Id. at 1041. Davis v.
Superior Court, 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (1959), overturned an indict­
ment for smuggling a book out of San Quentin in violation of a 
prison rule. The court did say that control of prison communicatic 
necessary to protect against escapes, is part of prison admini­
stration and that "reasonable" rules on communication are per­
missible. Id. at 19-20. Yarish v. Nelson, 27 Cal.App.3d 893 
(1972), like Pell, upheld a very narrow rule against a press 
interview of a specific prisoner. In doing so, the court 
followed what it called a "reasonableness" test, based on 
United States v. 0'Brien, discussed at p. 29, supra. The case 
most directly in point, not cited by appellant, acknowledges that 
a Sheriff may "reasonably regulate the operation of the jail" 
but holds that even a convicted felon, who was serving as an 
attorney's investigator, was entitled to visit the jail because 
there was "no showing... that the...visits to the jail cannot be so 
handled as to avoid endangering security." Clifton v. Superior 
Court, 7 Cal.App.3d 245,255 (1970).

41



do not authorize exclusion of the public. Nor do the 
38/

federal cases. The Sheriff cites no case, and we know 
of none, holding that a member of the general public who 
(1) properly identifies himself, (2) consents to be searched, 
(3) presents himself at a reasonable time, and (4) has 
some reasonable purpose for wanting to view the jail, may 
be excluded without a showing of potential harm to security. 
In short, the Sheriff errs in asserting that the public has 
only a "privilege" to enter the jail.

This is not, however, the occasion for the Court 
to attempt to define with precision the rights of the general

37/

37/ Cal. Govt. Code §26605 simply says that "The Sheriff 
shall take charge of and keep the county jail and the prisoners 
in it." Various Penal Code provisions make it a crime to com­
municate with a prisoner without permission of the officer 
in charge (§4570), to use false identification to gain 
admittance (§4570.5), if a former convict, to come on the 
grounds without consent (§4571) and, if a tramp or vagrant, 
to come on the grounds and communicate with a prisoner 
(§4572). No provision prohibits a concerned citizen from coming 
on the grounds to view jail conditions.
38/ Pell and Saxbe clearly do not define the rights of the 
public. Saxbe does mention the "truism that prisons are 
institutions where public access is generally limited,"
417 U.S. at 849, but does not specify what the limitations 
are. In Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966), the Court 
upheld trespass convictions of students who conducted a 
demonstration on jail grounds. The disruptive demonstration 
blocked the entrance used to transport prisoners, 385 U.S. at 
45, and the Court held that there was no constitutional pro­
tection for the demonstrators' activity. Compare National 
Prisoners Reform Association v. Sharkey, 347 F.Supp. 1234 
(D.R.I. 1972), holding that members of the public had a 
First Amendment right to enter the prison for meetings with 
prisoners, in the absence of a showing of danger to security.

42

i



public to access to county jail facilities- That can await
a case involving only the rights of a member of the general
public. In the present case, there are sound reasons for
providing reasonable access for news media without regard
to the precise contours of an ordinary citizen's right.
Completely free access for the general public seems impractical
Considerations of time, space and efficiency may make it
physically impossible for members of the general public
randomly to inspect jail facilities. But the public's
right to know the "reality of confinement" at Santa Rita
cannot be limited to the handful of citizens who journey

39/
to and are permitted to tour the jail. The only way the
public at large can become aware of Santa Rita conditions

40/
is through the press.

39/ In Brenneman v. Madigan,343 F.Supp. 128,132 (N.D. Cal. 
1972), Judge Zirpoli found that because such reality "is 
so elusive" the court could not rely simply on the evidence 
presented in the courtroom but was required actually to visit 
the jail. The Court may take judicial notice of the fact 
that Santa Rita is located in a remote rural corner of Alameda 
County, a long drive from any center of population.
40/ This was recently recognized by the Alameda County Grand 
Jury Interim Report of February 4, 1976, stating that "more 
positive" media contacts are needed:

"The Grand Jury recommends that pro­
cedures be swiftly instituted to focus 
responsibility within the Sheriff's 
Department for disseminating information 
about Santa Rita and other Sheriff's 
Department functions that will enable 
the public to make informed judgments 
concerning these operations."

43



inspect Santa Rita, the press should be considered the
public's agent for the purpose of getting basic information
on jail conditions. As the Supreme Court recently pointed out,

"In a society in which each indi­
vidual has but limited time and 
resources with which to observe 
at first hand the operations of 
his government, he relies neces­
sarily upon the press to bring 
to him in convenient form the 
facts of those operations."
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn,
420 U.S. 469,491 (1975).

Access by the press, as a "sub-group" of the public, would
satisfy the public need for information without interfering
with any valid state interest. See Note, The Rights of
the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv.L.
Rev. 1505,1522 (1974). A California prison official who
prefers that the press act as the public's agent put it this way

"A far better provision for opening 
prisons to the public eye is to safe­
guard the right of access to all 
public institutions by responsible 
newsmen. Where the president of the 
local Ladies' Aid Society can inform 
only the few in her group, the media 
can inform millions of citizens about 
prison programs. The media does a good 
job of reporting in most instances, and 
prison administrators should have no 
qualms about admitting responsible 
reporters to view prison activities 
and to interview men in these programs."
Park, On Being Medium Nice to Prisoners,
Wash. U.L.Q. 607,615 (1973)“:

Accordingly, since the entire public cannot

44



The situation may be considered analogous to
the many cases holding that there was no denial of a
"public trial" even though the general public was excluded
from the courtroom, if the press was permitted to be
present. See, e.g. Aaron v. Capps, 507 F.2d 685,687
(5th Cir. 1975) ("Particuarly important is the fact that
the news media were admitted"); U.S. ex rel Orlando v.
Fay, 350 F.2d 967 (2d Cir. 1965); Geise v. U .S. , 262 F. 2d

42/
151 (9th Cir. 1958). This Court, in Geise, supra, approved 
the lower court's statement that "the term 'public' is a 
relative one, and its construction depends on various 
conditions and circumstances." 262 F .2d at 157. These 
cases recognize that special access by the press may often 
serve the legitimate interests of all.

Moreover, different treatment of reporters is 
justified in this case because under the district court's 
order they, unlike the members of the public who go on 
the Sheriff's tours, can be both screened and searched.
The Sheriff does not screen or require identification of 
citizens who present themselves for the tours (Tr. 75).
Nor are they searched. But we recognize that the Sheriff 
has the right to insist on proper identification of

42/ But see U.S. v. Kobli, 172 F.2d 919,923 (3d Cir. 1949), 
holding that exclusion of all spectators except the press 
violated the Sixth Amendment.

45



reporters and to search them and their equipment. The 
district court's order allows the Sheriff to take special 
precautions not required of the general public.

In short, in the unusual circumstances of this
case, there are valid reasons for granting different access
to the press than to the public at large. It must be
remembered that this case does not involve confidential
information, which the government may prevent both the
press and the public from having. Nor does this case
involve access to grand jury proceedings, cabinet meetings,
judges' conferences, executive sessions of government
agencies or the like, which the government can legitimately

43/
insist be confidential.

The Sheriff's wooden contention that he may 
exclude the press so long as he excludes the public, because 
the rights of the press are strictly defined by the rights 
of the public at large, simply ignores the fact that the 
First Amendment explicitly singles out the press for special

43/ This distinguishes Trimble v. Johnston, 173 F.Supp. 651 
(D.D.C. 1959), where the court held that a reporter was not 
entitled to inspect government payroll records. The court 
said that the government may deny access of both press and 
public to matters such as cabinet meetings and the like.
But these are instances in which the government has a need 
to keep the information confidential, while in the present 
case there is a need to have the information made public.

46



protection. If the Free Press guarantee meant no more than 
the right of the ordinary citizen, "it would be a con­
stitutional redundancy." Stewart, "Or of the Press,"

44/
26 Hastings L.J. 631,633 (1975).

In summary, neither controlling precedent nor 
reason requires that press rights be dependent on whether 
the Sheriff permits access by the general public. Well- 
established First Amendment principles govern. Under those 
principles (see pp. 28-34, supra), the Sheriff has not 
justified his press restrictions and the district court 
did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary relief.

44/ Mr. Justice Stewart was of course the author of Pell 
v. Procunier. However, in his Hastings article, he cited 
Pell only for the proposition that "There is no constitutional 
right to have access to particular government information, 
or to require openness from the bureaucracy," Id. at 636, 
a right no one asserts here. An accompanying article points 
out that in Pell the press in fact enjoyed greater rights 
than the public and that four Justices would have extended 
even greater rights to the press; the author suggests that 
if press and public had in fact been equally restricted, 
as in the present case, the result would have been different. 
Nimmer, Is Freedom of the Press a Redundancy? 26 Hastings 
L.J. 639,644' (1975).

47



CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the order of the district 

court should be affirmed and the stay promptly vacated.
Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM BENNETT TURNER 
LOWELL JOHNSTON 
WILLIAM E. HICKMAN 

12 Geary Street
San Francisco, California 94108 

Attorneys for Appellees KQED, et al.*

* We acknowledge the assistance of law students Angela 
Blackwell and Susan Scott in the research of this brief.

48



State of California 
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

Sacramento 95814
June 25, 1975

TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO. 25/75 •
TO: Wardens/Superintendents; Regional Administrators;

Departmental Staff
SUBJECT: Administrative Manual Revision

(-?V<SVy\
3)

Attached is a revised procedure and policy statement 
Administrative Manual, Section 415.01 through 415.4.. 
includes the following changes.

for the 
which

1. Inmates in main line status in institutions may be 
interviewed by news media representatives at any time 
with consent of the inmate. Previously, only one by­
name request interview was permitted in any six months 
period.

2. Inmates in special security housing units may be inter­
viewed on a by-name request basis once every three 
months. Previously, by-name request interviews with such 
inmates were prohibited.

3. News Media representatives will be given access to all 
areas of institutions for purpose of news coverage. 
Previously, some institutions did not consistently 
permit news people and cameras in the maximum security 
units. Access may be denied during disruptions. With 
the approval of the Director, access may also be denied 
because of temporary circumstances or problems. 4

4. Parolees and inmates in community centers may be inter­
viewed with their consent. Previously, there was no 
clear statement with respect to press contacts with 
parolees and center inmates.



Page 2 Administrative Manual - TL 25/75

5.

6.

There are some language changes which stress the 
importance of full and timely cooperation with news 
media. Also stressed is the need to inform media 
representatives of "positive” programs and events m  
addition to the obligation to report troubles.
Writers not covered in the definition of news media 
representatives may be permitted access and interviews 
with the approval of the Director. Previously, the 
decision on such persons was left to the respective 
institutions.

Please see that all concerned personnel are aware of the 
contents of this manual revision.



REV

REV.

REV.

ADD

Section Section
41S PUBLIC INFORMATION $ COMMUNITY RELATIONS 415

rar. . . _ , _> i415.01 Public Information and Community Relations Plan
Each institution and parole region shall have a public 
information and community relations plan consistent with 
the rules of the Director of Corrections and Administrative 
Manual provisions.

415.02 Public Information and Community Relations Defined
Community relations is the management function of con­
structively integrating the institution, the parole unit 
and their employees in the broad community, developing 
public confidence in the organization, and better under­
standing of the organization and its aims and problems. It 
implies the evaluation of public attitudes and a positive 
program to earn public understanding. A sound public in­
formation program is important in achieving good community 
relations.

415.03
Public information means not only the full recognition 
of the public's right to know about the operation of an 
institution or parole unit, but more important, it means a 
positive program to disseminate information necessary to 
the education of the public so that departmental and insti­
tutional performance can be judged on rational standards.
It requires an attitude of cooperation and responsiveness 
in dealing with news medial

415.04 Organization
Each institution and parole region will designate an appro­
priate member of the staff responsible for coordination of 
the public information and community relations programs.

415.05 Public Information Procedures
In general the following provisions must be considered only 
as guides. News and all the factors associated with it are 
highly variable. No set rules will cover all situations. 
There is no substitute for good judgment.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975

TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION f, COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

Par.
415.06 Public Information Procedures

Institutions and parole offices will notify the Director 
or Assistant Director, Public Information, at once of 
any occurance or situation of unusual public interest. 
Reporters frequently call the Director, so it is therefore 
imperative that he and his staff are informed.
When written news releases are issued by the institutions 
and parole offices, copies of the same will be forwarded 
to the Director or Assistant Director, Public Information, 
indicating information given. Likewise, the Director or 
Assistant Director, Public Information, will be informe 
•of all but routine news media contacts.

415.07 Notification of Wardens, Superintendents, Regional 
Parole Administrators, and Adult Authority

The central office will, as appropriate, inform institutions 
and parole regions of impending events likely to be of 
public interest. Copies of written departmental press 
releases will be forwarded to each.

415.08 Release of Information to the Public

Spot News
Institutions and parole offices are encouraged to release 
spot news, i.e., items of public interest about programs, 
activities, escapes, crimes committed, etc. They are also 
authorized to release appropriate photographs.

415.09 Factual Information About Inmates or Parolees
The following data may be provided: Name, age, birthplace,
place of previous residence, physical descriptions, commit­
ment information, criminal record, institutions to which 
committed, information from the adult probation report, in­
stitutional assignments and behavior, state of general health, 
cause of death, nature of injury or critical illness, and 
actions regarding sentence and release. Generally, it is 
appropriate to provide all data which is a matter of public 
record, except that the "rap sheet" may not be used as a 
source. Under law, information on the "rap sheet" may not 
be used to furnish information concerning an inmate or 
parolee's arrest history to members of the public, including

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975

TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION $ COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

"rap sheet" itself is not used, any mrormatiun_ 
an innate or parolee's file which is not otherwi 
confidential nay be provided to those members of 
with a legitimate need to know such information.

415.10 ‘Authority to Release Information
The authority granted to institutions and parole offices to 
release information applies to no individual employee unless 
specifically authorized by the appropriate supervisor.

415.11 Media
The "press" includes, newspaper and wire service reporters 
and photographers, plus television news reporters and re 
porters for news magazines such as TT7TE and NEhShEEK. A 
distinction must be made, however, between radio-1V-news 
operations and other programs on radio or television.
A good working relationship with the press is important.
This does not mean the seeking of publicity nor the granting 
of favors, but cooperative and frank replies to queries plus 
the prompt and uncolored release of news.
The names and telephone numbers of accredited press repre­
sentatives should be readily available to those officials 
authorized to issue press releases and statements, and these 
press representatives should be informed as to the proper 
person or office to contact when they are seeking information.

415.12 Releases
Release of spot news information should be initiated by the 
institution or parole unit. They should be made as soon as 
practical after the event. The releases should be made to 
all reporters or media which cover the institution or parole 
unit as nearly simultaneously as possible. Each should be 
provided with the same information. Releases need not be 
provided the press in written form.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ' ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975
TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION $ COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

415.*12 (continued)
Every _e_ffort^should^_b£_m^e_^o__rel^as^_constru^ive_^ew£^
concerning the institution in ai  ̂ |, | n„.i

" D E ! ! ^ F  ernJnaTTTmT^°artnshows_1_ anS^c^nsTructiv^
^ n » a ;  L e " 'p- 5 ^ n n t ^ 6 j ec t s  Q-f r e le a s e s ^

415.13 Inquiries
Inquiries from the news media shall be answered fully, 
frankly, and quickly. News media inquiries will be 
given high priority.
An official authorized to respond t0
hn ouicklv available at all times. Such official must 
thoroufgKTy familiar with departmental and institution
policies and procedures.
Officials should not speculate or guess in answering inquiries
° ^ S^ L ^ e Sani ^

should^b^given f a ^ s ^ r e ^ o f  then hno™
or if for other reasons they are not available, the inquire 
should be told so and an explanation made.
A person making an inquiry should not be referred to a half- 
dozen people. The information should be collected by 
person called, coordinated, and relayed to the calle .
When a reporter makes an inquiry and information is developed 
to answer it, neither the fact that he inquired nor the 
information developed as a result should be volunteered to 
any other reporter.

415.14 Informing the Director
The director will be informed via the assistant director 
for public information, of statements and releases given to 
news media, as well as instances in which reporters enter 
institutions to cover activities or interview inmates.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUKE 25, 1975
TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION 5 COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

Par.
415.15 News Media Access to Institutions

News media representatives, as defined in Section 415.18, 
will be given general access to all areas of institutions, 
including various maximum security units, with the prior 
approval of the warden or superintendent. Wardens or 
superintendents may, with the approval of the director, 
impose limitations on or set conditions for such access when 
in their judgment such media access would constitute an 
immediate threat to safety and good order or generate 
serious operational problems. News media representatives 
may be barred from institutions during disruptions. Wardens 
and superintendents may prohibit still and motion picture 

ADD paraphernalia in maximum security units or other sensitive
areas, with approval of tiie director, at those times when 
the presence of such equipment might precipitate disruption. 
The intent of this section, however, is to encourage all 

. reasonable cooperation with and access for professional news 
reporters and camera crews as a means of fulfilling the obli­
gation of a public agency to keep the public informed and 
to dispel rumors and false reports.
Access by editorial researchers, free lance writers, authors 
of books, independent film makers, reporters for weekly news­
papers, and others not included in Section 415.13 may be 
permitted by special arrangement and with the approval of 
the director.

415.16

415.17 Interviews with Inmates 
Policy

It is the general policy of the Department of Corrections 
that interviews between inmates and representatives of the 
news media shall be allowed. This policy is subject to the 

. limitations hereinafter set forth.
415.18 News Media Representative

Defined as a full-time reporter for recognized and regularly 
published news magazines such as TIME and NEWSWEEK, general 
coverage daily newspapers (published at least five times a 
week), daily news programs of radio and television stations, 
and general coverage news services such as Associated Press 
and United Press International.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975
TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION f, COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

Par. ' '
415.19 Interviews by Others

ADD Interviews by reporters and others not included in Section
415.18 may be permitted by special arrangement and with 
approval of the director.

415.20 Random News Media Interviews
News media representatives may be permitted, with consent of 
the inmates involved, to interview randomly selected inmates 
or randomly selected inmates involved in various specific 
activities and programs, or inmates encountered at random by 
news media representatives in their course of covering an 
institutional activity or event. News media representatives 
with inmate consent, may also interview inmates on an anony­
mous basis.

Granting of Random Interviews
The granting of random interviews to representatives of the 
news media will be at such time and limited to such areas 
of the institution or segments of inmate population as the 
institution head shall designate. As a general rule these 
interview sessions should be permitted as often as a valid 
news media interest therein exists, and be subject only to 
such restrictions as are connected with the operation and 
security of the institution. No inmate will be interviewed 
against his will.

415.21 Interviews with Specific Inmates

Defined as interviews by news media representatives with 
inmates specified or requested by name and arranged by 
prior appointment.

News media representatives may be permitted to interview a 
specific inmate if the inmate wishes it under the following 
conditions:

Interviews with specific inmates may be prohibited, with the 
approval of the Director, at those times in which sucli inter­
views , in the judgment o.f the w'arden or superintendent, 
would jeopardize the current safety and good order of the 
institution, and at those times in which such interviews 
would be detrimental to the welfare and best interests of 
the inmate. Interview's with inmates who are psychiatrically 
diagnosed as psychotic are prohibited.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975

TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION Q COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

Par.
415.21 (continued) . .

Interviews with specific inmates will be permitted no more 
than once every three months during periods in which 
inmates are in isolation or segregation. If m  any three 
month period several interview requests are received, tne 
inmate will be permitted to select the reporter to conduct 
the interview from among those who have made requests. 
Interviews may be prohibited for a reasonable time afte 
inmates are received from courts or returned_from_parole. 
Interviews with condemned inmates are prohibited in tne 
10 days immediately preceding their scheduled execution.
If an inmate is awaiting trial, such interview may be 
permitted only (1) with consent of the inmate s attorney, 
(2) if the inmate has no attorney, with consent ot the 
court; (3) if the inmate is a co-defendent, after notice 
the co-dcfendents and their counsel or court; (4) ii the 
court has imposed a gag rule in the case, with specific 
approval of the court as expressed by minute order.

to

Interviews with specific inmates must be approved by the 
warden or superintendent. Interviews will be arranged to 
be conducted during regular institution hours if possible. 
A H  interviews will be conducted under suen conditions as 
the institution head may deem appropriate, including re­
strictions as to time, place and length of interviews, 
size of film crew, and any other factors related to the 
interview. The use of cameras or recording equipment must 
be approved in advance by the warden or superintendent. 
News media may be required, in unusual circumstances, to 
pay for the cost of any added supervision or security^ 
arrangements which may be deemed necessary in connection 
with an interview.

Interviews with Parolees and Community Center Inmates
Parolees and inmates of centers may be interviewed with 
their consent.

415.22 Recording Interviews
With the written consent of the inmate or parolee, the 
interview may be recorded. To indicate his consent, the 
inmate or parolee will sign CDC Form 146 which will be 
executed in accord with instructions therefore.
Instructions for Use of CDC Form 146 (Release)
The following instructions for use of the form entitled 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS . ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25,1975
TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION & COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

Par.
415.22 (continued)

"RELEASE" to be used when inmates are subject of still or 
motion pictures and/or voice recordings when said pictures 
and/or recordings are primarily intended for transmission 
by television and/or radio, newspapers, magazines or other 
publications, shall be observed.
1. No inmate shall be photographed or have his voice 

recorded for the purpose described above unless he has 
first properly signed CDC Form 146 - "Release".

2. No inmate shall be photographed or have his voice 
recorded for the purposes described above except 
on a voluntary basis.

3. Inmate subjects must be twenty-one years of age 
or over to be approved for this activity.

4. Individual inmates will not be paid for such 
photographs or recordings.

5. Two employees shall witness the signing of the 
"Release" by the inmate and shall themselves sign 
as witnesses.

6. In order to provide a permanent record of the 
incident, the signed copies of the "Release" shall 
be distributed as follows:

Original: Institution file.

Yellow: Inmate file.

Photography
Inmates Committed to the Custody of the Director 
of Corrections and Parolees

Still or motion pictures, other than for official purposes, 
which reveal an inmate's identity, may be taken within an 
institution or camp only with the written permission of the 

REV. inmate or parolee. A photograph of an inmate which reveals 
his identity but is taken in a manner which does not attract 
attention to the individual, may be taken without the written 
authorization of the inmate if it is impractical to obtain the 
inmate’s consent.

y r**  

sup

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL AUGUST 14, 1975
TL 35/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION & COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415 '

Par,
415.22 (continued)

Consent is not required when the inmate is photographed in a 
group shot which does not purposely single out any individual 

npy although the inmate is identifiable. In spot news situations,
such as fire suppression activity, a written release is not requires 
Photographs which do not reveal an inmate’s identity may be 
taken without the written authorization of the inmate.
Written permission shall be evidenced by signing CDC 146, in 
accord with the preceding instructions. In situations where^

REV the inmate is under the control of the Department of Corrections 
but not on state property, an effort to secure a release will be 
made if it is feasible. If the inmate is both recorded and 
photographed, only one release is necessary. The inmate may also 
sign other releases, but must first sign CDC Form 146.
The photographing of an inmate who refuses to sign CDC 146 or 
who objects to being included in the picture is not permitted. Whei- 

REV« spot news photographs or group shots are being taken, inmates 
should be advised in order that those who do not want to be 
recognized may turn away from the camera or leave the area.
Pictures of inmates other than those under sentence of death may 
be made in any appropriate location, such as on their job or 
other assignment, with their art work, playing an instrument, 
etc., depending on the news or feature story under development.

Identification photographs (mug shots) of inmates committed to 
the custody or under the jurisdiction of the Director of 
Corrections may be furnished to the reputable press without 
the written consent of the inmate.

415.23 Inmates Committed to the Youth Authority

No photograph which would reveal the identity of any inmate 
committed to the Youth Authority shall be made other than 
for official purposes.
Identification photographs (mug shots) of inmates committed to 
the Youth Authority as Superior Court criminal cases may be 
provided to the press. No photographs may be provided to the 
press of any Juvenile Court case except in the event he escapes.

415.24 Photograph —  Condemned Inmates
Photographs of condemned inmates are prohibited in the ten days 
prior to their scheduled execution.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL AUGUST 14, 1975
TL 35/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION f« COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

r •
415.24 (continued)

In the event an inmate under sentence of death is trans- 
ferred fro" one institution to another, either departing 
or arrivin'7, or both, immediately prior to the inmate s 
scheduled execution, spot news photograpns of the depar 
ture and arrival may be permitted. Possession of un 
authorized cameras in or near the execution chamber is 
forbidden. No photography of the execution chamber wil 
be permitted within in working days of a scheduled exe 
cution. No photographs shall be taken of an execution.

415.25 Informational Inquiries
Requests for information shall be given prompt attention.
Inquiries addressed to a specific institution requesting 
information about the history or operation of an insti­
tution will be answered by the institution unless there 
is some question regarding the communication or a matter 
of policy is involved.
Unusual or repeated inquiries or letters should be reported 
to the Director.
Requests for information on a department-wide basis, re­
quests involving more than one institution, requests 
involving other agencies of the department or state 
government should be referred to central office for reply.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

T V

S'
ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975

TL 25/75



Section
415 PUBLIC INFORMATION $ COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Section
415

Par.
415.34 (continued)

exist when the institution is a place of mystery, set 
apart from the community.
Reception of visitors must be cordial and businesslike. 
Employees must be courteous, pleasant, neat, helpful and 
efficient. f

Parking. Appropriate, identifiable parking will be pro­
vided for visitors where possible. In the planning of 
any event expected to attract large numbers of visitors, 
adequate parking space must be arranged.
The parking area shall be supervised. If the event may 
cause traffic problems off the reservation, the California 
Highway Patrol and/or other appropriate agency will be 
notified in advance. Employees will not act as traffic 
officers on highways off department property.
Employees must be sensitive to possible misunderstandings 
by visitors. Where the possibility of misunderstanding 
exists, care shall be taken that an adequate explanation 
is made. Employees regularly meeting the public conducting 
tours or escorting groups will make a particular effort to 
inform themselves in order to make an effective presen­
tation and provide accurate, complete answers to questions.

415.35 Public and Group Visits and Tours
Service clubs, trade associations, labor unions, educa­
tional groups, and other civic organizations should be 
encouraged to visit the institution. Facilities may be 
offered them to hold meetings while there. Tours and 
dinners will be governed by DP-4104.

415.36 Conducted Tours for Individuals
Institutions may set aside one day a week at a regular 
hour for a conducted tour for individual members of the 
interested public. These individuals would be treated 
as a group.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL JUNE 25, 1975
TL 25/75